the light. These alone could afford us accurate information not only as to the social conditions, but as to some of the most important public events in those periods. It is partly on this account, though the fact is also in large part due to the passions and prejudices of the two nations, that on the ever-burning question of Irish history, Englishmen and Irishmen put forward two widely different views. The two positions are diametrically opposed and each is tainted with extravagance.

In the view of Englishmen, the history of Ireland is that of a backward people engaged in a stupid revolt against the genius of English civilisation, and all the sacrifices which the English in their generosity make for the development of "that part of the United Kingdom" meet with no better return than crime, violence and ingratitude. Irish history is the story of a barbarous people, incapable either of understanding or accepting the lustre of English liberty," as Cromwell put it in his

I See on the history of Ireland the following general works :-G. Keating (1570-1640), History of Ireland (Irish Texts Society edition. Campion, History of Ireland (published in 1633 by Sir John Ware). Cox, Hibernia Anglicana, 1689. MacGeoghegan, Histoire d'Irlande, Paris, 1758-1763. Leland, History of Ireland, 1773. Plowden, An Historical Review of the State of Ireland from the Invasion to the Union, 1803. Hallam, Constitutional History of England, 1827. Thomas Moore, Memoirs of Captain Rock, 1824. Daniel O'Connell, A Memoir of Ireland, Native and Saxon, 1843. Froude, History of England, London, 1856-1870. Goldwin Smith, Irish History and Character, Oxford and London, 1861. A. M. Sullivan, The Story of Ireland, Dublin, 1867, John Mitchel, History of Ireland, from the treaty of Limerick, New York, 1868. Stuart Mill, England and Ireland, London, 1868. Froude. The English in Ireland in the 18th Century, London, 1872. W. H. Lecky, History of England in the 18th Century, London, 1883. Richey. A Short History of the Irish People, Dublin, 1887. W. A. O'Connor, History of the Irish People, Manchester, 1884. Emily Lawless, Ireland, London, 1887. Ball, Historical Review of the Legislative Systems operative in Ireland, Loudon, 1883. Two Centuries of Irish History, with an Introduction by J. Bryce, London, 1888. Duke of Argyll, Irish Nationalism, London, 1893. W. O'Connor Morris, Ireland, 1494-1868, Cambridge, 1898. T. D. Ingram, A Critical Examination of Irish History, London, 1900. J. P. Gannon, A Review of Irish History, London, 1900. Rev. E. A. D'Alton, History of Ireland, Vol. I., Dublin 1903, and Vol. II, 1906.

Cf. G. de Beaumont, l'Irlande sociale, politique et religieuse, 4th édition, Paris, 1840. Cardinal Perraud, Etudes sur l'Irlande contemporaine, Paris, 1862. J. Flach, Considérations sur l'histoire politique de l'Irlande, Paris, 1885.

proclamation in 1649. The true explanation of what has happened is to be found in the essential weakness of Irish character, which has been found wanting, when put to the trial in the struggle for life. English misdeeds, if such there ever were. have been repaired long ago. And when prescription has been running its course for a century it is criminal to re-open the case and stir up slumbering passions by recalling forgotten wrongs. Hence Irish history is a subject to which Englishmen do not like to turn their minds. No good, say they, can come of it. It is not a matter worthy of scientific study. As a result, not only is Irish history not taught to English children, but it was not until recently even allowed to be taught in the National Schools of Ireland.

The attitude of Irishmen upon this matter is exactly the opposite. To them Irish history is their consolation; their greatest hope; it is always before their eyes, always upon their lips. They live in the past. Everything around them speaks of other days. Round towers, ruins, fallen abbeys, ancient castles, nay, the very desolation of the country itself, bring memories of times gone by. England sees in the faults and vices of Irishmen the true explanation of their misfortunes; Ireland deems the cruelty and tyranny of the English to be the real and only cause of her unhappiness. As Englishmen brazenly shut their eyes to their national misdeeds, so Irishmen complacently shut their eyes to their own shortcomings, and never weary of looking back upon that golden age of Erin, when, whilst England was yet steeped in pagan barbarism, the Irish were the the protectors and the pioneers of western civilisation.

In considering the circumstances of Ireland, the influence

"

2 "Ireland has never realised that unity and continuity of national life which alone can furnish a worthy theme for history" (George C. Broderick, Political Studies, London, 1879, with reference to Froude's work, The English in Ireland) Cf. page 354: It is time for us to have done with fanciful and allegorical pictures of Ireland as a forlorn maiden, brooding helplessly over her bygone wrongs, pointing out the wounds that are now finally healed, and clanking the chains that have been struck off for ever."

exercised by its geographical position is an all-important fact. If we take them singly we can find a parallel elsewhere, for each one of the evils under which Ireland has suffered. The soil of Ireland is not less fertile than that of Holland. It is not more bloodstained than that of Flanders. Distinctions of race are not sharper in Ireland than in Switzerland. And whilst religious persecutions have in Ireland been carried out with dire cruelty, yet the country remains Catholic to-day in spite of them. But what makes the case of Ireland worse than that of any other country, even Poland, is the fact that all these evils have afflicted her simultaneously, and have continued to do so, without intermission, for seven centuries. For this result the geographical position of the country must be held in a great measure responsible. It lies far away by itself to the extreme west of Europe, with Britain, as it were, for its prison wall. Thus, the interposition of England cuts off Ireland from the current of European civilisation and intercepts all commerce, whether spiritual or material, with other countries. "You have always been like a high garden wall standing between us and the sun," said George Canning's daughter, Lady Clanricarde, to an Englishman. If England has all the advantages of an insular position, Ireland has all the disadvantages. It need only be added that its proximity to England prevents the English people, in the interests of their own peace, from ever leaving Ireland out of account. It was then in the nature of things that of these two sister countries with interests sharply opposed, the larger island should exercise a preponderating influence upon the smaller.

I. EARLY IRELAND.

One result of Ireland's isolated position in early times was that Cæsar's legionaries never set foot in the country. Later on, indeed, Ireland came to a greater or less degree under the influence of Roman literature; but Roman law never

Had it been

laid its enduring mark upon the country. otherwise, her history must have been far different. Being outside the ambit of Roman civilisation, Ireland developed from within upon her own lines. And it was at once her good and her evil fortune that she thus retained her distinctively "Celtic" character entirely unimpaired.

The early history of Ireland, as we find it in the annals and mythological poems, gives us a picture of diverse peoples combating and succeeding one another-sons of Partholan or of Nemedh, Tuatha-de-Danann, "Fomorians" and Firbolgs. But from a time immediately preceding the Christian era, the "Celts," together with a certain intermingling of aborigines, are found in possession of the island. These were the Gaels,3 who belonged to that great Celtic race, that had once been masters of all Europe, but had been gradually driven back by the advance of Roman power and by Germanic incursions. According to legend these Gaels were the descendants of Miledh or Milesius, who had crossed over from Spain a thousand years before the Christian era. We learn from the same source that not less than one hundred and fifty kings of Milesian stock reigned over Ireland. This much is certain, at any rate, that in the first centuries of our era, there existed in Ireland a civilisation that had reached an advanced stage of development. To the study of this civilisation the ablest students of Celtic archæology and Celtic philology have been devoting their researches for half a century.4

3 According to another theory (the most probable one), the Gaels belonged to the Nordic or Teutonic race. It has also been maintained that the mass of the Irish people are of Iberian or Scythian stock, and that the Gaels only mingled with this earlier population and imposed their language upon them.

4 We can only send the reader first of all to the works of the uncontested master of Celtic studies, M. d'Arbois de Jubainville, then to those of MM. Gaidoz, Loth, Ernault, Dottin, etc. Cf. O'Curry, Ancient Irish History, Dublin, 1861; Manners and Customs of the Ancient Irish (edited by W. R. Sullivan, Dublin, 1873). H. S. Maine, Ancient Law, London, 1861; Early History of Institutions, London, 1875; Early Law and Customs, London, 1883. Zimmer, Keltische

It

The most striking characteristic of this society was its tribal organisation. The social cell, standing next in order above the family, was the tribe, which consisted of a group of families, a body of freemen connected by a real or imaginary tie of kinship, who bore the same name, lived together in a defined portion of territory, and owned a certain number of serfs and slaves. These communities were rural, for there were no towns. The land belonged to the tribe; part of it was grazed in common, and the rest allotted from time to time between the free men. Yet private property was not unknown. existed in regard to cattle, which were then the chief wealth, and even in regard to land. The chief had a private demesne appertaining to his office, which he farmed out to tenants, who paid him rent in kind. The chieftaincy was elective, but was confined to a single ruling family. In matters of politics, the "tribe" was of less importance than the "clan," or group of tribes, and the clans themselves were grouped into the five provinces5 or kingdoms, which were subject at least in name to the Ard-Righ, or High King of Ireland. The High King, however, like the Holy Roman Emperor of the middle ages, had little real authority, for he had neither civil jurisdiction nor military power. But he had a royal residence, the famous palace of Tara; and there in a sort of Agora, were held the triennial festival and games of the Feis.

Yet

Wars were carried on unceasingly, now between tribe and tribe, now between kingdom and kingdom. again there were revolts against the authority of the Ard-Righ. In the end the position of Ard-Righ came to belong exclusively to the powerful family of the Hy-Niall,

Studio, Berlin, 1881-1884. Most Rev. Dr. Healy, Bishop of Clonfert, Ireland's Ancient Schools and Scholars, Dublin, 1892. Sophie Bryant, Celtic Ireland, London, 1889. Eleanor Hull, Pagan Ireland, and Early Christian Ireland, London and Dublin, 1904 and 1905. Lady Ferguson, The Irish Before the Conquest, London, 1868. Douglas Hyde, A Literary History of Ireland, London, 1903.

5 Ulster, Connacht, Munster, Leinster and Meath.